The Guild made a comprehensive proposal to settle the entire contract Tuesday, starting with annual raises of 5 percent for four years.

Under the Guild’s plan, the pension would get a much-needed boost, with an increase in the contribution from 85 cents an hour to $1.05. The Company’s pension contribution has not increased since 1986. With the stock market struggling and a reduction in the Guild workforce, a raise is needed.

The Guild proposal would add a fifth year of vacation at 15 years of employment and a sixth week at 25 years.

The package would include agreeing to the proposed switch to an MVP plan. Since the move would save the Company money, the Guild said it made no sense to increase the employee contribution from the current 16 percent. The Guild also proposed that the Company pay the full deductible in the first year, giving employees time to set aside the $750 for future years. The Guild also called for the Company to set up a debit-card system, enabling you to use the card to pay your doctor.

For employees in advertising, the Guild proposed that there be one pay classification for sales people at Class D and that commissions be subject to the review and approval of the Guild’s Commission Committee. We’ve received numerous complaints about the frequent changing of goals, unrealistic sales expectations and constant addition of new products to sell.

The proposal came after the Guild had sent out a survey on Friday to its advertising sales workers, with a suggestion that a meeting be held to discuss these issues further.

“Making this proposal does not negate our ability to still have this discussion,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “We wanted to make a comprehensive proposal swiftly because we think any change to our health insurance should be part of a contract settlement. That meant giving the Company a full proposal today, but we certainly expect there to be more discussion about whether the current five different pay classifications for advertising sales employees is appropriate and what changes should be part of a final contract.”

The Guild also proposed increases in various differentials, many of which have not been raised in decades, and for a consistent policy for reimbursing employees for using their cell phones. There were also eight upgrades proposed.

You can see the complete proposal here.

The Company is upset at the Guild’s insistence that any agreement on health insurance be part of a total package.

“We’ve sat at the table since June staring at the same pile of givebacks, and the Company has not moved off a single one of them,” O’Brien said. “Give them the health insurance, and they would have no motive to move off a thing until next year’s health insurance costs were up for discussion. It is well past time that the Company put the same energy and effort into its proposals that the Guild has put into theirs. We are committed to reaching a total package that rewards our members for their hard work and dedication and for the ever-increasing workload they are expected to bear. The Company would be well-served to remove its proposed givebacks from the table and to start a discussion on what a reasonable contract offer would be. We believe our proposal today is an important step toward that goal.”

The Company is again proposing a switch in health-care plans, this time to an MVP plan.

While the Company wants to quickly move the health insurance change — which could save it hundreds of thousands of dollars at a minimum — Guild bargainers said any agreement should be part of a full package on a contract. Guild bargainers are preparing a full settlement offer they hope to make to the Company Tuesday.

The health insurance proposal comes after Blue Shield initially proposed a 36.45 percent increase in health-care costs. Through negotiation, that hike was cut down to 27.98 percent. The Company then asked its brokers, Rowlands and Barranca, to look for alternatives.

The plan the Company is now proposing would require a smaller amount out of employee’s weekly paychecks, but it also would require a deductible of $1,500 for individuals and $3,000 for families. The Company said employees will have to pay $750 of the deductible in either case, and it will cover the rest.

Currently, people in the Blue Shield plan that covers most members pay $34.32 a week or $1,784.64 a year. Next year, that would go up to $43.93 a week, or $2,284.08 a year if we kept the same plan.

Under the Company’s proposed switch to MVP, the cost would drop to $22.20 a week or $1,154.04 a year. Employees who use their health care or get prescriptions would see an added cost of up to $750 for the deductible. However, during the period when the Company is covering the deductible (between $750 and $1,500 for individuals and $750 to $3,000 for families) employees would not pay any charge for prescriptions.

For most employees, that could mean a savings.

It gets more complicated for those who get a lot of prescriptions or whose families get a lot of prescriptions. Once the employee’s health care cost outpaced the deductible (again, $1,500 for individuals or $3,000 for families) employees would have to pay $10 for generic drugs, $30 for name-brand drugs and $50 for certain “nonformulary” drugs. You’d have to do that until you reached the plan’s out of pocket maximums, which are $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families. (That could mean up to $1,000 more for individuals and $2,000 more for families.)

Neither the Company nor its broker could say Monday how many people might be affected that way.

The Guild was first provided this information late Thursday, and members of the Bargaining Committee and Executive Board met Monday with the Company and its brokers to ask further questions. Some information, like the list of doctors and covered medications, is still to be provided.

“The Company wants us to separate this discussion from contract negotiations, so it can quickly implement this change,” said Guild President Tim O’Brien. “If we did that, it would still require a vote of the membership before any change can be implemented. However, we believe that it is not in our members’ best interest to separate out a giant cost-saver for the Company while it has not moved off a single of the givebacks it is demanding. We believe the parties should look at a total package that settles the entire contract.”

O’Brien called the insurance switch “a great motivator” for both sides to find common ground on a complete contractual agreement.

Bargaining resumes at 1 p.m. Tuesday in the Executive Conference Room. Members can attend on their own time.

As promised earlier in these negotiations, the Guild on Tuesday presented a comprehensive proposal on exempt titles. The union agreed to a number of title changes the Company sought, but it also eliminated all vacant management positions and proposed to move 11 exempt jobs into the union.

The union also asked questions about 13 other positions that are currently classified as exempt. After the discussion, the union agreed to place three of those titles — the customer care manager in circulation, the consumer marketing manager in circulation and the executive producer online — into exempt ranks.

The Company came to the table Tuesday with workflow charts for each department, which was helpful in focusing the discussion.

As the union noted back in July, the Company literally has one manager for every 2.5 workers. With our ranks thinned through buyouts and attrition, it made sense to revisit whether those positions are all properly classified. For example, the director of research oversaw two librarians who took a buyout and are not being replaced. With no staff reporting to that position, it did not appear that it should continue being classified as supervisory.

The union also noted that in marketing, there is literally a supervisor for every Guild-covered worker. Guild bargainers sought to add several of those positions to the Guild to correct the imbalance.

You can read the Guild’s proposal here. (This version removes the three titles we agreed after questioning could stay exempt.) The first sheet shows the titles we proposed to eliminate, those we proposed to move to the Guild, and those we still have questions about. The second and third pages reflect the way titles appear in the contract and include titles that have been changed.

Bargaining resumes at 2 p.m. Wednesday. Members are free to attend on their own time.

Negotiations resumed Monday with a contentious discussion: Guild bargainers strongly objected to the Company’s decision to discipline bargainer Stacy Wood for not meeting some ad sales goals while bargaining.

Even though Stacy hit more than 100 percent of her total goal last month, the Company cited her for not selling what they viewed as enough online ads and new business. Stacy noted to the Company that she had been in bargaining many days during the period, and she was told, in essence, too bad. Despite the fact that she was on leave from work, Stacy was told, she’d still be disciplined.

Guild President Tim O’Brien said no other bargaining committee member is expected to do their jobs and bargain at the same time. “When I am bargaining, I am not expected to write stories and Mary Fultz is not expected to edit them,” O’Brien said. “John DeMania, a district manager, is not expected to oversee delivery of newspapers at the same time he is negotiating the contract. Stacy should not be held to a different standard.”

O’Brien warned the Company that its stance could have a chilling effect on negotiations. In order to protect its member, he said, the union might be forced to limit the  number of sessions it could hold in any one week or could insist on bargaining on nights and weekends.

“We’ve always had a member or two from advertising on the bargaining team,” O’Brien said. “They work hard to continue to sell ads and bring in revenue, and Stacy is not an exception in that regard. But we’ve never had a bargaining committee member disciplined while we negotiate because they didn’t sell ads while they bargained. It is completely unreasonable. The Company’s recent treatment of advertising employees has been awful, and it has driven many good sales people to leave.”

The Company tried to get O’Brien to back off on his assertion that the discipline was inappropriate and potentially illegal, but he refused. The union will explore all of its legal options on how to respond.

Bargaining resumed Monday for the first time in more than three weeks.

The Company finally produced a list of existing exempt titles. While you might think that would be easy to track, the Company adds and changes titles so often it can be hard to know who does what. When the Company started the day saying their list was “99.9 percent complete,” Guild leaders asked if it included changes announced in a Sept. 19 e-mail in advertising. That caused the Company to go into a caucus for more than an hour.

When they emerged, they produced a list that included 31 exempt titles that are not in the current contract and 20 exempt positions that are vacant. Guild bargainers asked to be provided with departmental flow charts that show how many people each supervisor oversees. In a workplace where there is a ratio of one manager for every two workers, the union intends to address those positions that are listed as exempt but are in fact doing union work.

Do you know of any exempt supervisors you think should be re-classified as Guild-covered employees? If so, let us know by phone at 482-9218 or by e-mail at office@albanyguild.org